Economic development often dictates that ethical issues relating to animal welfare are put on the backburner. Recent regulatory developments in Europe and India (see ChemLinked news on 8 Jul) have however proven that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. The advent of technologically viable alternatives to animal testing has positively changed the outlook for future generations of animal test subjects and concerned animal rights activists alike. I was lucky enough to pick the brain of none other than Dr.Nick Palmer, Director of Policy for Cruelty Free International (CFI),fresh from attending the recent International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulations (ICCR) conference. Dr.Palmer schooled me on some of CFI’s current initiatives, future avenues of progress and imparted some lasting words of wisdom on the most pertinent issues relating to the welfare of animal test subjects. CFI is a NGO with extensive experience in successfully lobbying governments to end the use of animals in cosmetic safety testing. As one of the team at CFI with a particular interest in Asia, Dr.Palmer has worked tirelessly for 3 years advocating the rights of animal test subjects and proved influential in numerous global regulatory interventions. While Europe’s strong stance on animal welfare serves as an ideal template for other global policymakers to model, it remains to be seen how this move will impact trade and development in other economic zones. In the following interview I got the lowdown on cosmetics reforms from a distinctly Asian perspective.
- Chemlinked: What is the main obstacle for a Chinese ban on animal testing?
Dr.Palmer: After problems with consumer product safety in the past (e.g. the baby milk issue), China is naturally cautious. However, since the alternatives often provide a higher degree of safety (because e.g. human skin cultures simulate human skin problems better than animal skin), the main issue is just familiarity and training, so that validation of alternatives is accompanied by a real ability to do the alternative tests.
- Chemlinked: Do you think the Chinese government is under increased pressure to implement bans on animal testing in line with global regulatory trends?
Dr.Palmer: Chinese cosmetic firms wishing to export to Europe do now need to show that their products and ingredients have not been tested by them on animals. At present, firms wanting to sell in both European and Chinese markets will therefore need to have parallel safety testing of essentially identical products, with and without animals, which obviously imposes extra cost and delay for them. So Cruelty Free International does see considerable interest among both Chinese and multinational industry in having non-animal options.
- Chemlinked: It is known that the 3T3 NRU Phototoxicity Test (still in draft stage) is going to be the very first alternative to animal testing in China, do you agree that a ban on animal testing in China could be a lengthy process?
Dr.Palmer: We certainly think a ban will be a long process. It would be an important step forward to have an option – allowing firms to decide whether to prove safety using alternatives or not. Even this is likely to take 5-7 years at the current rate of progress, but we hope that the process will accelerate.
- Chemlinked: How do you feel about the Chinese authority’s response to CFI’s campaign on promoting alternatives to animal testing?
Dr.Palmer: We had a lengthy discussion at the Institute for Food and Drug Quality Control, which is likely to play a key role in providing alternative testing. Since China, unlike most countries, requires pre-market State testing, it’s crucial that State institutes have the expertise in doing non-animal safety testing. We hope to help in speeding the process so that the State is able to provide the alternative testing faster.
- Chemlinked: India announced their intention to ban domestic animal testing for cosmetic products, do you think India will follow the EU’s lead with an outright ban on all cosmetics products subject to animal testing?
Dr.Palmer: While the Indian ban has not yet been finally committed to writing, we are very optimistic. Initially this will apply to domestic manufacture, but an import marketing ban is likely to follow – not least as it’s only fair to Indian manufacturers are expected to compete on the same terms.
- Chemlinked: Besides India, what else other Asian countries are likely to follow the suit?
Dr.Palmer: The entire ASEAN group of 10 countries traditionally follows EU procedures and we are hopeful that they will follow within the next year. Cruelty Free International is working with Vietnam, the only country to do official animal testing, to convert to non-animal methods, a project which we hope to see implemented later this year.
- Chemlinked: What are the key projects CFI is working on at the moment and what areas can Chinese enterprise help to fulfil these goals?
Dr.Palmer: We are working to develop capacity across Asia in general and in China in particular. We would be delighted to work with Chinese firms on this, to help them develop expertise in non-animal methods, opening up the European market for them, and to take part in the dialogue with the Chinese authorities to have the regulations change to accept non-animal alternatives. Chinese firms are welcome to contact me at nick.palmer@crueltyfreeinternational.org .
- Chemlinked: Do you think that the EU’s ban on animal testing could have any ulterior motives other than animal welfare in mind? Do you think there are any elements of market protectionism at play here?
Dr.Palmer: We don’t think that was the reason in this case - rather it was because consumer pressure became so overwhelming that it became clear that the European Parliament would not tolerate further delay. Our founding organization, the BUAV, with colleagues across Europe worked tirelessly for over 20 years enlisting the support of the public, politicians and companies across Europe (http://www.buav.org/our-campaigns/no-cruel-cosmetics). A delay would need to have been proposed by the Commission and approved by the Parliament, and it became obvious that it would have no chance of success.
- Chemlinked: Do you feel that testing bans are solely policy issues or should industry be involved in the process. Other than financial sanctions and regulations are there anyways industry can be motivated to implement these bans or decrease reliance on animal test subjects?
Dr.Palmer: Cruelty Free International is keen for industry to be involved – with consumers anxious to see cruelty-free products and the European market now requiring them, the interests of animals and industry have converged and we are now all on the same side. The challenge is to bring regulations into line with modern expectations, and we look forward to working constructively with industry – in China as elsewhere.
For further information on Cruelty Free International: www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/en/
We provide full-scale global cosmetic market entry services (including cosmetic registering & filing, regulatory consultation, customized training, market research, branding strategy). Please contact us to discuss how we can help you by 
